Canon needs to respond with SOMETHING

[Sporgon]

I think pixel peeping is a good way to waste a good thing.

;D

Like it !

I've started checking my images at 50% and find it's a better reference for checking real resolution.

I still maintain that 22 mp on FF is 'high mp'. If I want more than this I want a larger format.

 

[jrista]

Yes, I want a higher MP camera. Yes, I want more DR. Yes, I want better manual focus ability. Yes I want improved AF and yes I want a lot more. But having seen the sharpness, resolution, color and everything else I get from what I have, I wonder if anyone (other than the pixel peepers at CR ) will be able to see/tell if I got the new 14 f-stop sensor, with 45MP and ... all the rest of it.

I think your (perfectly reasonable) comment invites two opposite lines of response, both of them right. If you don't pixel peep (I sometimes wonder if those who disapprove do so because they don't like what they see when they do...), just how much better do images taken with the new Sigma's images look than those taken with other 50mm lenses? Depending on how you view them, perhaps not much - maybe not at all. But if you do like pixel peeping (I do, when I like what I see - perhaps there's some AA equivalent: "Hi, my name is X and I like to pixelpeep..."), you will be able to see a difference when you switch sensors (I certainly see a difference when I attach my favorite Canon lenses, such as the 100L, to my Sony A7r, for instance). Whether the differences are significant, and whether they matter, depends entirely on who's looking.

Can you share your results so we can objectively look at them? (your 100L on the A7r and a Canon dSLR?)

Personally, I feel those who disapprove of pixel peeping indeed do not like what they see when they do- a beautiful image in subject and composition can suddenly be rendered worthless when you start to pay more attention to the minutiae. I think pixel peeping is a good way to waste a good thing.
Let's face it, if your image looks great when fitted to a desktop LCD monitor and you don't plan on an enormous print, what are you gaining by the extra resolution at 100%? What does pixel peeping provide other than vanity? (I regularly pixel peep for my research, but then I am trying to find tiny fluorescent neurons among a ton of luminous gunk)

Pixel peeping has it's place, but it should be thought of as a tool, not the end result. I zoom to 100% when I am denoising or sharpening, to see what the effect looks like at the pixel level. It's how I choose the right attenuation of the various denoising or sharpening settings.

But pixels aren't a picture, they are only components of a picture. You have to look at the whole picture to see the photograph. The problem with "pixel peepers" is that those are the whiny group of individuals who see nothing BUT the pixels, or to steal a phrase "missing the photo for the pixels".

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I think you have to align yourself with a manufacturer and stay with it. It's too expensive and time consuming to change when the next 'best of market' product is released. For me Canon is the whole package in terms of quality of products, camera software, lens, support, and stability. They might not always be on the cutting edge, but we do know that they will competitive. They can't afford not to be.

If your in this as a business, then a decision to buy is not made off of, gotta have the next best thing. It's made on an assessment of budget, and the illusive question, will those features make a grand impact on your bottom line: IE do you stand to sell more/take on more clients/up your prices enough to absorb the purchase cost of the equipment.

This is one of the reason why I think Canon does so well with the pro segment. It's why we won't see a 5d4 announcement in thisyear. Why, they know that the 5d3 in the right hands can and will hold it's own with anything else in the market in the right hands. the also know that most who bought it are working pros who are on a budget. Yeah they could toss a 5d4 out there now, but -- as another poster said, bodies are expensive, and, part of that cost IS durability - this body is meant to last you for more than 2 years!!!

 

[daemorhedron]

I don't understand the doomsaying in a lot of posts. Surely you must see that loyalty is a two way street, and that sometimes singular focus bleeds into fanatacism.

For one thing, if you are invested completely in canon glass, you can easily get an adapter that lets you use them on Sony so it's not really a valid excuse in my books.

Myself, I am wildly impressed with Sony's offerings. I shoot on a humble EOS M, the camera that everyone seems to love to hate. It's spoiled me in a few ways, and it is far more fabulous than people make it out to be, but I did buy a Sony a7 to try out since I largely do portrait work and want to upgrade to FF. The camera itself is wonderfully impressive in the IQ, the dynamic range and skin tones in particular was very impressive! However, a lack of touchscreen and honestly the worst ergonomics of any camera I have ever held drove me to madness and it had to go back.

I also bought an EOS M2 to try out, but found that it did not offer anything substantial over the M and was in fact worse since I lost my beloved Magic Lantern which allowed, amongst many other things, focus peaking. So it too went back.

I feel Canon does need to answer with something, but I am also quite confident that they will do so appropriately. It would seem likely they will release an improved M and ideally a full frame M too. One can only hope that it also supports wired tethering at the very least.

Regardless of vendor, we do seem to live in exciting times with lots of innovation. =)

 

[Loswr]

Myself, I am wildly impressed with Sony's offerings. I shoot on a humble EOS M, the camera that everyone seems to love to hate. It's spoiled me in a few ways, and it is far more fabulous than people make it out to be, but I did buy a Sony a7 to try out since I largely do portrait work and want to upgrade to FF. The camera itself is wonderfully impressive in the IQ, the dynamic range and skin tones in particular was very impressive! However, a lack of touchscreen and honestly the worst ergonomics of any camera I have ever held drove me to madness and it had to go back.

I like that you were so wildly impressed that you returned the camera.

It's a really important point that many manufacturers in many fields seem to forget/ignore…putting up impressive specifications and/or excelling in one particular feature is all well and good, but at the end of the day user satisfaction is critical. I think that's why Canon gained and has kept their position as the market leader for many years – their cameras are well-designed and easy to use, and generally do a good job of meeting customers' expectations and needs.

 

[mackguyver]

Myself, I am wildly impressed with Sony's offerings. I shoot on a humble EOS M, the camera that everyone seems to love to hate. It's spoiled me in a few ways, and it is far more fabulous than people make it out to be, but I did buy a Sony a7 to try out since I largely do portrait work and want to upgrade to FF. The camera itself is wonderfully impressive in the IQ, the dynamic range and skin tones in particular was very impressive! However, a lack of touchscreen and honestly the worst ergonomics of any camera I have ever held drove me to madness and it had to go back.

I like that you were so wildly impressed that you returned the camera.

It's a really important point that many manufacturers in many fields seem to forget/ignore…putting up impressive specifications and/or excelling in one particular feature is all well and good, but at the end of the day user satisfaction is critical. I think that's why Canon gained and has kept their position as the market leader for many years – their cameras are well-designed and easy to use, and generally do a good job of meeting customers' expectations and needs.

Having used Sony and Panasonic cameras, that's what drove me nuts, too. How many damn menus can one camera have??? The EOS M for all it's shortcomings absolutely nails things for usability. Ever since I bought my humble SD110 back in 2003, I have been enamored with the simplicity and ease of use that every camera has. You can pick up any Canon camera from compact to 1D X and begin using them within minutes.

 

[sagittariansrock]

However, a lack of touchscreen and honestly the worst ergonomics of any camera I have ever held drove me to madness and it had to go back.

That's the problem with Sony right now. That's what bothers me about a company that has brought out so many amazing innovations that it puts Apple to shame. Their engineering is top notch, but whoever is driving their product development and marketing strategies need to take a long vacation.
I am surprised that they didn't make the A7/r perfect in every way before shipping them out. This could have been the iconic turnaround for Sony- such a widely anticipated camera. No competition, it is like scoring into an empty net.
Six months since its release, all we have is one f/4 zoom and two prime lenses. Shouldn't they prioritize converting some of their top FF A-mount lenses to E-mount and drag in as many adopters as possible? Instead they are using aggressive pricing to rope in customers. I don't think people want cheaper cameras- there are plenty of those. Sony should have exploited the USP of the A7/r, and IMO they have missed the bus on that one.

Regardless of vendor, we do seem to live in exciting times with lots of innovation. =)

+1. That is the most important thing. We all benefit from healthy competition.

 

[sdsr]

Pixel peeping has it's place, but it should be thought of as a tool, not the end result. I zoom to 100% when I am denoising or sharpening, to see what the effect looks like at the pixel level. It's how I choose the right attenuation of the various denoising or sharpening settings.

But pixels aren't a picture, they are only components of a picture. You have to look at the whole picture to see the photograph. The problem with "pixel peepers" is that those are the whiny group of individuals who see nothing BUT the pixels, or to steal a phrase "missing the photo for the pixels".

I don't see why it has to be either-or; just because a photo is well composed and looks good overall, and was taken with a view to being seen as such, doesn't mean that there aren't details in it that one might want to peer into as well or that it can't be cropped to create a different composition that stands as well on its own. Some photos lend themselves to it more than others, perhaps, but we don't all see and look in the same ways. (And if there really are people who take photos merely to peer at pixels, that's their business, not mine - unless they whine in my presence...).

To answer someone else's point - maybe pixel-peeping could be a vanity exercise, but when I'm impressed technically by what I see when pixel-peeping I'm impressed not by me but by whoever made the equipment in question.

 

[traingineer]

I'd love an interchangeable sensor camera someday

[I know, I know it exists in the MF territory- I'm talking about dSLRs. Although at this time it is counter-productive from a marketing standpoint]

I believe this is what you are looking for.

YIKES!!

Don't forget Canon's offering! ✌ﾟ∀ﾟ✌

 

[jrista]

Pixel peeping has it's place, but it should be thought of as a tool, not the end result. I zoom to 100% when I am denoising or sharpening, to see what the effect looks like at the pixel level. It's how I choose the right attenuation of the various denoising or sharpening settings.

But pixels aren't a picture, they are only components of a picture. You have to look at the whole picture to see the photograph. The problem with "pixel peepers" is that those are the whiny group of individuals who see nothing BUT the pixels, or to steal a phrase "missing the photo for the pixels".

I don't see why it has to be either-or; just because a photo is well composed and looks good overall, and was taken with a view to being seen as such, doesn't mean that there aren't details in it that one might want to peer into as well or that it can't be cropped to create a different composition that stands as well on its own. Some photos lend themselves to it more than others, perhaps, but we don't all see and look in the same ways. (And if there really are people who take photos merely to peer at pixels, that's their business, not mine - unless they whine in my presence...).

Cropping does not change anything I've stated. A cropped photo is still a conglomerate of millions of pixels. Maybe not the tens of millions your sensor has, but still millions. If you are cropping so much that your final image can only be printed at native size on a 4x6, or cannot be downsampled, then your cropping way too much, and you seriously need a better camera.

As for detail to draw viewers in, sure, but again...you are either downsampling to some acceptable "web size", or printing, and in both cases, the amount of detail that can be effectively displayed at a comfortable viewing distance is generally going to be significantly less than what your photo started out with at 100%.

Now, as 4k displays hit the market and eventually become mainstream, we as photographers will certainly have more demanding viewers expecting better results. But even then, the pixels of 4k screens are going to be even farther below the resolving limit of most viewers, and harder to resolve for viewers with exceptional vision, which again mitigates the impact of pixel-level IQ details.

 

[Lawliet]

Cropping does not change anything I've stated. A cropped photo is still a conglomerate of millions of pixels. Maybe not the tens of millions your sensor has, but still millions. If you are cropping so much that your final image can only be printed at native size on a 4x6, or cannot be downsampled, then your cropping way too much, and you seriously need a better camera.

As for detail to draw viewers in, sure, but again...you are either downsampling to some acceptable "web size", or printing, and in both cases, the amount of detail that can be effectively displayed at a comfortable viewing distance is generally going to be significantly less than what your photo started out with at 100%.

Thats unless you do, for example, commercials - first the final crop will depend on the layout, framing tight might make the image unuseable. Second the file is expected to hold up when zoomed in, because you have details from the overall image enlarged in dead spaces. The whole image to set the mood, the and enlargements to sell the actual product or draw attention to specific details. Enough resolution is approximatly when you can go from a full length shot with some scenery to a closeup of a piece of jewellery...

 

[Loswr]

Sony as one example sold more cameras in South Korea than Canon and Nikon in 2013

Sony sold 0.1% more than Canon. In one country. Worldwide, how did Sony compare to Canon for 2013? :

 

[daemorhedron]

Myself, I am wildly impressed with Sony's offerings.

I like that you were so wildly impressed that you returned the camera.

You'll note I did the same to Canon. =)

It's pretty simple: the technology is *easily* available and I am tired of paying for sideways upgrades. Ergonomics, lack of touchscreen and wired tethering were the tipping points for me to take the camera back because it does me little good to wrestle with it. I will point out that I have almost the exact same complaints about Canon, and any existing vendor.

This does not detract from the simple fact that it takes absolutely amazing pictures. The sensor is absolutely phenomenal, but I won't use it because the ergonomics and layout of the device is counterintuitive and arduous. It does little good that it takes great pics when I have to spend so much time setting up each shot.

I am one of those 'crazies' that supposedly doesn't exist: I want a mirrorless full frame camera with touch screen, ideally articulated, and wired tethering. Hot shoe, lens adapter compatability, focus peaking and speedbooster. When you compare my wants with existing systems, the only two that really come close are Sony A7 and EOS M.

The Sony A7 is MUCH closer, but touchscreen won out, what can I say. Keep in mind that Magic Lantern helped to make that decision, which is really another strike against Canon. How the hell can you not have focus peaking standard is beyond me.

I don't understand why people love to hate all over such a camera, often spouting doom filled prophecies of non existence and outrageous expense, but the second it's out (regardless of vendor) that's what I'll be getting. =)

This is not an unreasonable request, and frankly I am truly shocked/disappointed it's not already available.

 

[Loswr]

I am one of those 'crazies' that supposedly doesn't exist: I want a mirrorless full frame camera with touch screen, ideally articulated, and wired tethering. Hot shoe, lens adapter compatability, focus peaking and speedbooster.

Oh, you're not crazy, and people with your set if requirements certainly exist. Just not enough of you, it seems...at least in terms of Canon's market research.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Thats unless you do, for example, commercials - first the final crop will depend on the layout, framing tight might make the image unuseable. Second the file is expected to hold up when zoomed in, because you have details from the overall image enlarged in dead spaces. The whole image to set the mood, the and enlargements to sell the actual product or draw attention to specific details. Enough resolution is approximatly when you can go from a full length shot with some scenery to a closeup of a piece of jewellery...

You make one (of quite a few) good cases for horses for courses. This is a bonafide situation where a Canon user needs to migrate or add a D800 to his arsenal, and by your own previous post (and I agree) this is painless to do given the right motivation. High-res sensor with wide range of DR is not Canon's forte, it would be very bad strategy to try to outrun competitors in their own turf. We as Canon users have to accept that, migrate or add a different system. Personally, it doesn't concern me or (evidently) the majority of dSLR users.

To answer someone else's point - maybe pixel-peeping could be a vanity exercise, but when I'm impressed technically by what I see when pixel-peeping I'm impressed not by me but by whoever made the equipment in question.

Don't take it personally, we are all vain in some way or the other, and often subconsciously. And we are as often vain about what we own than about what we have accomplished.
In any case, that didn't answer my point- I was hoping you can share some comparison between the IQ of A7r vs whichever Canon dSLR you use. Not that I am doubting you, I am just curious. I have heard very good things about the A7r and just recently almost coerced a friend into buying it (he is a Sony person- I did try forcing 6D down his throat first, unsuccessfully).

[What? Bonafide is not in the dictionary? ]

 

[Zv]

Myself, I am wildly impressed with Sony's offerings.

I like that you were so wildly impressed that you returned the camera.

You'll note I did the same to Canon. =)

It's pretty simple: the technology is *easily* available and I am tired of paying for sideways upgrades. Ergonomics, lack of touchscreen and wired tethering were the tipping points for me to take the camera back because it does me little good to wrestle with it. I will point out that I have almost the exact same complaints about Canon, and any existing vendor.

This does not detract from the simple fact that it takes absolutely amazing pictures. The sensor is absolutely phenomenal, but I won't use it because the ergonomics and layout of the device is counterintuitive and arduous. It does little good that it takes great pics when I have to spend so much time setting up each shot.

I am one of those 'crazies' that supposedly doesn't exist: I want a mirrorless full frame camera with touch screen, ideally articulated, and wired tethering. Hot shoe, lens adapter compatability, focus peaking and speedbooster. When you compare my wants with existing systems, the only two that really come close are Sony A7 and EOS M.

The Sony A7 is MUCH closer, but touchscreen won out, what can I say. Keep in mind that Magic Lantern helped to make that decision, which is really another strike against Canon. How the hell can you not have focus peaking standard is beyond me.

I don't understand why people love to hate all over such a camera, often spouting doom filled prophecies of non existence and outrageous expense, but the second it's out (regardless of vendor) that's what I'll be getting. =)

This is not an unreasonable request, and frankly I am truly shocked/disappointed it's not already available.

Although I would love to have seen Canon put focus peaking in as standard on the EOS M I think their reasoning behind not including it is simply because the vast majority of people using it would not be using manual focus lenses with it. It's very much a consumer level camera aimed at the amateur. Most of whom will just use the kit lens. To be fair for static subjects you can easily just tap the zoom button to help focus. Focus peaking is more for useful for video. I have ML installed and after the initial "wow - focus peaking!!" moment I haven't really needed it, and I have two FD leneses that I regularly use with it. For me the Magic Zoom function is better especially in bright sunlight.

 

[Orangutan]

Sony as one example sold more cameras in South Korea than Canon and Nikon in 2013

Sony sold 0.1% more than Canon. In one country. Worldwide, how did Sony compare to Canon for 2013? :

Is it just me, or do the few posts from arco iris seem somewhat familiar?

 

[tolusina]

Canon does not need to respond to anything Sony does.

Here's an article about a new development by Sony engineers in the magnetic tape technology field, they've come up with some pretty amazing developments in that field.

But, this is Sony so there's a BUT, well, here, you read it......
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/02/sony_tape/

Keep in mind to the technically superior Betamax video tape format that failed so miserably, nor should the Memory Stick be forgotten.

As far as the flashy and marvelous new baubles Sony has long been know for and the company based on, they've largely been supplanted by Apple.

Canon does not need to respond to Sony's latest imaging bauble, it's a Sony, it's doomed and doomed by virtue of being a Sony. It has patches of brilliance supported by fail.



.

 

[jrista]

You should change your metaphor, it is is Canon who are chasing today .
Sony as one example sold more cameras in South Korea than Canon and Nikon in 2013 and I think the rest of the world will go the same way , from large SLR to smaller but with a FF sensor.

Canon has never chased anyone. They never chased anyone in the past, and they are not chasing anyone now. Canon does what Canon does, for whatever reasons Canon decides to do them. People are constantly complaining about how "Canon hasn't responded to <pickyourpoison>" and "Canon MUST respond to <yaddayadda>"...they constantly complain, because Canon is not in the business of "responding" to anyone for anything...never have, and I don't have reason to suspect they ever will.

Canon builds products for THEIR customers. They build EXCELLENT products for THEIR customers. The fact that Canon builds excellent products for their customers is the reason why they are one of the top imaging companies in the world, and the top photography company in the world. Canon delivers what their customers ASK for, and they make sure that what they deliver lives up to the expectations their customers have, and their own reputation.

Nikon is a very different company. Nikon has practically made a reputation out of doing two things: Responding to competitors products (and responding extremely late, well beyond the time when the ship sailed and the train left the station), and creating hyperniche products like the Df or a 24karat gold plated, lizard-skin gripped $12,000 trophy camera that no one cares about other than as a curiosity on the internet every so often (oh yes, that thing really does exist...which actually blows my mind... ???). Sony doesn't even seem to have a plan, it's just "*BLAMM!* Shotguun and Ho'yeah! Let's see wut sticks! " wild-west product design and production that's burning their funds and burying them in a hole so deep and filled to the top with debt they will never be able to see sunlight again (let alone pay off).


Canon is not, and will not, be responding with anything to any competitor's product any time soon. Canon will release the 7D II, or the 5D IV, or the 1D XI or whatever the next big thing is when THEY decide it meets the necessary requirements and is capable of maintaining and building up Canon's reputation as the worlds top (and most profitable) photography company. When the next big thing is released, it WILL be a phenomenal product that DOES live up to Canon's reputation as a top-notch photography company, and even if it doesn't have 25 stops of DR, 150 megapixels, 100fps, a 900 image frame buffer, a 200 point AF system that works in both mirror mode and live view/video mode, a 12000ppi 10-bit full-color high DR 60fps EVF and quad memory card slots supporting both CF and CFast2 all for the rock bottom low price of $500....good grief ppl....do you realize what you all sound like when you bring up the "Canon MUST respond!" and "Canon charges too much!" and "I want this, and this, and that, and OH YEAH THIS THING TOO! AND IT HAS TO BE $1500!!!!!!1!1!111111~~! *gimmegimmehgimmeeeenglfheee* *gasp* *GASP* *SUUCKING IN AIR....*"? :

Bleh...it would be a wonderful day if everyone could just be happy with the fact that pretty much every single camera on the market today puts nearly every camera from the film era to complete and total, utter shame when it comes to IQ. Even when it comes to drum-scanned large format film, while you gain in resolution, even that can't really touch the color depth and brilliance of a high resolution digital sensor these days.

 

[philmoz]

Bleh...it would be a wonderful day if everyone could just be happy with the fact that pretty much every single camera on the market today puts nearly every camera from the film era to complete and total, utter shame when it comes to IQ. Even when it comes to drum-scanned large format film, while you gain in resolution, even that can't really touch the color depth and brilliance of a high resolution digital sensor these days.

So true; but unfortunately many cameras end up in the hands of talentless hacks, or people who won't take the time to understand the art.

They blame the technology for their own shortcomings, then vent on forums like this - believing their failure to capture compelling images is somehow the manufacturers fault.

Phil.